McMaster
4th March 2014, 20:14
I've been an enthusiastic follower of scientific news and phenomenons for as long as I can remember. I can remember reading finnish science magazine "Tieteen Kuvalehti" (free translation "illustrated journal of science") as young as 7-8 years old and never getting enough of it.
But as I've grown older and perhaps a little wiser I have started to see redicilousness of lots of so called accepted scientific theories which are treated as a fact.
This thread could be used to post articles/papers etc. about current scientific "facts" that clearly are wrong but still are treated as fact.
I start with a paper that discusses planetary formation. I will pick a small part of it which describes the state of the currently accepted "fact" of accretion disc formation of planets and stars.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.0168v1.pdf
Neither core accretion nor disk instability can explain the
spin directions of solar planets, the conservation of angular momentum of the protostars,
the evaporation of the protodisk, the formation of gas giant planet, and incredibly stable near-circular planetary orbits for billions of years, as well as why some low mass stars have planets while others have nothing around them, not even dust rings.
And yet they are discussed as a fact in MSS and MSM. I wont even go digging any deeper in that paper and it's suggestions which are assuming a lot.
But as I've grown older and perhaps a little wiser I have started to see redicilousness of lots of so called accepted scientific theories which are treated as a fact.
This thread could be used to post articles/papers etc. about current scientific "facts" that clearly are wrong but still are treated as fact.
I start with a paper that discusses planetary formation. I will pick a small part of it which describes the state of the currently accepted "fact" of accretion disc formation of planets and stars.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.0168v1.pdf
Neither core accretion nor disk instability can explain the
spin directions of solar planets, the conservation of angular momentum of the protostars,
the evaporation of the protodisk, the formation of gas giant planet, and incredibly stable near-circular planetary orbits for billions of years, as well as why some low mass stars have planets while others have nothing around them, not even dust rings.
And yet they are discussed as a fact in MSS and MSM. I wont even go digging any deeper in that paper and it's suggestions which are assuming a lot.